From Reddit to Pornhub, Websites Slow Down for Net Neutrality on September 10
eff.org
eff.org
I'd happily put up with "protest slow-downs" every day of the week if it helps motivate the non-technical masses to understand the importance of what's being slowly taken away from them behind the scenes.
[0] A quote from a TechHive.com article on the subject: " Note: The slowdown will only be simulated, not actual—the spinning “loading” icons you’ll see on those sites are entirely symbolic."
https://httpd.apache.org/docs/trunk/mod/mod_ratelimit.html
http://nginx.org/en/docs/http/ngx_http_core_module.html#limi...
This is only really an issue with American ISPs, as the US is one of the few (or the only?) jurisdictions where this sort of behaviour is allowed.
99% of the comments support net neutrality? AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast must be freaking out.
I disagree with your point that public comments don't matter, since they reflect public opinion. The public are paying the bills of the telcos, and the FCC for that matter. The public can switch providers at any time, if they feel their current provider is acting against their interest. The public also has the ability to elect decision makers who can assign or fire people from the FCC. What are your thoughts?
But, in reality, how many Americans have any real choices in ISP/telco? I have a choice of two mega-telcos (Cox and Verizon), neither of which provides good value (when compared to plans in Europe).
As for the FCC, the revolving door is very real incentive for regulators to do what existing corporate interests tell them. Why would they care if they're removed from the FCC when they have a corner office waiting on K St?
Most Americans don't have a real choice, and ISPs know that. Don't like Comcast? Go to Verizon! But they're doing the same thing. Don't like Verizon either? Well, give up on accessing the internet. In some areas, you can't even get real broadband service from other ISPs; it's Comcast or bust.
> The public also has the ability to elect decision makers who can assign or fire people from the FCC.
The problem here is lobbyists and the legal system. Most politicians are uninformed on most issues (as are most people); they get a lot of their information from people who have the time and energy to provide that information to them. For example, a Comcast lobbyist goes to a congressman and says 'Hey, my client has this problem, they're providing a service to all these people but Netflix is taking advantage of them, using more than half of my client's capacity, which is drowning out everyone else. If they could charge Netflix for making excessive use of their network, they could reinvest that money into growth…' and so on.
Now there are arguments to go both ways, but the politician has only heard one of them, and it honestly does make sense. 'Why should we have to pay millions more to upgrade our networks for one single company? Should cities have to upgrade their traffic if one shipping company flooded the roads with trucks?' So no one argues the other side.
Thus, lobbyists promote their clients' interests in the US political system, provide campaign contributions to politicians who 'appreciate' their points of view (and denying it to those who don't), and you're left with a system where, no matter who you elect, they're insufficiently informed to make a rational decision.
So now the FCC is involved, but who runs the FCC? Who appoints them? Well, it should be whoever understands the industry best, obviously. And who understands it more than someone who's worked in it and knows what it needs and what challenges it's faced? Like a former cable company executive.
The real problem in the US is that corporations are allowed so much power in government, which results in a political system which (statistically) rarely reflects the values, opinions, or issues facing the people who cast the votes in the first place.
The other problem is that public opinion is fickle. Everyone was up in arms about Ferguson, but now what? How long since you've heard any news? The ice bucket challenge was bigger news, and now the iPhone launch, the Mojang acquisition… no one cares about some stupid town anymore. What was even the problem? Who can remember.
The public might be completely livid about net neutrality, but when the next season of The Bachelor Chef or Celebrity Hobo comes on their interests will wane and the problem will be solved.
Right, they were sued by big businesses (and lost) over their attempts at ad hoc enforcement of net neutrality principles, so they doubled down on them and issued the Open Internet Report and Order, were sued over that by big business (and lost), and tweaked it slightly [1] to issue a new version of the Order over which big businesses are pretty much certain to sue again (but, the FCC hopes, with less luck than the last two times.)
They may not be using the regulatory strategy that some consumer advocates want, but the 3-member majority of the FCC that keeps adopting open internet related rules isn't acting like they care much about maintaining their relations with big business (at least, unless you mean the big pro-neutrality businesses on the content side.)
(The 2-member minority that has been in opposition to those rules might be maintaining relations with the big telcos, but while they are participating in discussions, they aren't actually the ones setting policy.)
[1] And I'm not trying to disparage those who think that the tweaks open a dangerous weakness, but the basic structure and rules are essentially the same, and in some places stronger than the initial order.
Nice click bait title.
It's just 24 hours, but damn, we'll have to get through it somehow.
EDIT: I can be more specific. People have been constantly talking about Netflix and Verizon in the past year with regard to Net Neutrality, but in fact Netflix was being asked to behave as a big player and to help pay for the costs of running the network. Whether they should be paying for peering is out of scope for net neutrality, it's completely distracting. On a fully neutral net, the traffic from Netflix could kill your visits to HackerNews and PornHub, based on sheer volume. Network operators, though I agree they should have been expanding capacity, took action to ensure the network continued working for everyone.
If we had municipal internet _and_ neutrality, you would have a situation where the burden to expand network capacity is on taxpayers, and whoever shoves the most packets into the core network can dominate everyone.
The Internet would stop working immediately.
I'm certainly not arguing _against_ regulation, I'm arguing against the naivete` of 100% neutrality. There is no greater friend to a small upstart in a garage than network prioritization, but because you rarely have a network service which is _intended_ to be a service provider in your garage, arguments related to this don't much hold water.
It's frustrating for me because I largely agree with the intent and am on the same side as people pushing neutrality, but it's a term which has come to mean nothing and is largely talked about and criticized by people who do not know how to run a computer network. :/